Mike, I was talking about an extended period of time. After all, the present dig, if my memory serves me correctly, did locate the first settlement at Jamestown until the '90s, and, as my archeological friends tell me, the technological advances over the last 20 years or so is staggering. But, in one respect you're right. It was the discovery of her bones last year that settled the on-going dispute over whether cannibalism had actually taken place or whether the famine was exaggerated in contemporary correspondence.
Make it a good day -Louis- Louis Schmier http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org 203 E. Brookwood Pl http://www.therandomthoughts.com Valdosta, Ga 31602 (C) 229-630-0821 /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /^\\/ \/ \ /\/\__ / \ / \ / \/ \_ \/ / \/ /\/ / \ /\ \ //\/\/ /\ \__/__/_/\_\/ \_/__\ \ /\"If you want to climb mountains,\ /\ _ / \ don't practice on mole hills" - / \_ On May 1, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Mike Palij wrote: > On Wed, 01 May 2013 14:30:07 -0700, Louis E. Schmier wrote: >> The literature says that there were others. Perhaps the reason for >> the recent evidence is two fold. First, it was thought that the original >> Jamestown had disappeared into the river. So, no one excavated. >> Second, the scientific technology at archeologist disposal are a tad >> superior. > > I can't speak to the first point but the presentation on the Smithsonian > website seems to undermine the second point. Quoting from it: > > |"Our team has discovered partial human remains before, but the > |location of the discovery, visible damage to the skull and marks > |on the bones immediately made us realize this finding was unusual," > |said Dr. Bill Kelso, chief archaeologist of the Jamestown Rediscovery > |Project who has been overseeing excavations at Jamestown for more > |than 20 years. "We approached the Smithsonian's National Museum > |of Natural History for further research because of their proven > |understanding of the contextual history in this part of Virginia." > | > |Dr. Douglas Owsley, Division Head of Physical Anthropology at > |the museum, identified chops to the forehead and back of the cranium > |to open the head; knife cuts on the jaw and cheek indicating removal > |of the flesh; and markings indicating the head's left side was punctured > |and pried apart: all physical evidence consistent with survival cannibalism. > http://historicjamestowne.org/jane/jane.php > > So, it wasn't any new technique or form of analysis but the finding > of an unusual specimen that contained marks that apparently were > not found before. It was the finding of Jane that was critical. The > question now is whether any previous specimens can be shown to > have such marks or whether new remains can be found with similar > marks. I would not be surprised if the remains of the eaten were > buried differently from those who weren't. > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42440&n=T&l=tips&o=25332 > or send a blank email to > leave-25332-13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=25333 or send a blank email to leave-25333-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
